Where did the bizarre idea of "smoker's rights" come from?

Question

People should all have rights. Civil rights, human rights. But why should any habit confer additional rights on anyone? This would be true if your habit was inoffensive and benign, but even more so if you habit is disgusting, offensive and a health hazard.

If people developed the habit of eating raw excrement would we allow them to eat it in public? Would we let them eat it at their desk at work? Would we let them stand outside the entries to public buildings eating their crap and leaving the leftovers lying around on the ground?

Is smoking any different? It stinks, is gross and represents a health hazard, just as a dung-eating habit would do. So why do we let the fiction of "smoker's rights" even enter into the conversation.

You do not have extra rights (the right to pollute, annoy, endanger) because you have acquired a filthy and dangerous habit.

Mr. Moose: so long as all the individual is doing is choosing to smoke themselves. However, smoke from a cigarette fills up any space in which you light it, making everyone who shares that space obliged to also smoke the cigarette. This is why it must be banned from bars, restaurants and other public spaces. Why should someone else have to avoid these public spaces because a smoker chooses to emit toxic fumes. Don't forget those who have less choice about being in those spaces: the employees.

Answer 1

There is no such thing as "smoker's rights", there are simply "human rights". There is no reason to restrict behavior that is not causing any direct significant harm to others.

So we pass laws to restrict smoking when it does cause harm to others; indoor public places, work environments, etc. We pass laws to prohibit littering too and smokers are not exempt from such laws.

When done at sufficient distance from others outdoors, it does not pose any significant health problem to them, nor does it contribute measurably to air pollution in general.

You on the other hand do not have a fundamental right to have unreasonable sensibilities placated. Just because the thought of it annoys you is not sufficient ground to restrict others.

Answer 2

I don't smoke and I also believe it is a filthy, disgusting habit. (I watched my Dad die from lung cancer!!) BUT, where have I been? Is the tide changing? The last I knew people were not allowed to smoke in restaurants, at their workplace, anywhere on hospital grounds, etc. (Maryland). Back in the old days, movies portrayed smoking as sexy, the trend grew and since it is addictive, the habits grew and people smoked wherever they liked. It has been the last decade since they are trying to curtail these habits and stop these polluters from poisoning our air. I hope this is still the case.

Answer 3

Smokers don't have additional rights, but they do not relinquish any rights just by smoking.

Anything a smoker is not allowed to do that a non-smoker is allowed to do, must be a priveledge.

Only priveledges can be rightly taken away. Before anyone makes a new rule about what a non-smoker cannot do, they must be sure that it's a priveledge that is being taken away, not a right.

Answer 4

What gets me are the people coming out with non smokers rights. America is becoming a 'your side - my side' country, and it makes me sick. If you choose smoke, OK with me. I just do not think law makers can ban smoking in restaurants and bars. We have a Constitution that guarantees freedom of choice. Remember?

Answer 5

I agree. Many smokers don't realize that their activity poses a public health problem. They are more interested in their "rights" than they are in the health and welfare of those around them. Kind of selfish, don't you think?

Answer 6

Probably, from cigarette companies. Since any attack on "smoker's rights" is an attack on "billion-dollar profits rights"

Answer 7

I blame libertarians